alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 16, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-2432

Lower Tribunal No. 15-27325

________________



### Thomas E. Strinko

, Appellant,

vs.



### Sonth a S. Strinko

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, George A.

Sarduy

, Judge.

Thomas E. Strinko, in proper person.

Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP and Elizabeth S. Baker

, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Thomas Strinko appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Strinko’s petition to

domesticate and modify an Ohio judgment on the basis that Florida does not permita Florida court to grant grandparents visitation. We reverse and remand, as the

Ohio order awarding Strinko grandparent’s visitation rights is entitled to

enforcement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States

Constitution.

Strinko filed a petition seeking domestication of a judgment entered by the

Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, in Butler County, Ohio. The

judgment granted Strinko supervised visitation with his granddaughter, K.C.

K.C.’s mother, Sontha Sue Strinko, moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that

grandparent visitation ordered by a foreign court is unenforceable in Florida as a

matter of law. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition, and

Strinko now appeals.

Subsequent to the trial court’s decision, the Florida Supreme Court decided

the issue of enforcement of a similar order from a sister state based on the Full

Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution. Clearly, the trial court

did not have the benefit of this decision when it entered its order dismissing

Strinko’s petition. In Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs

, 210 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2017),

the Florida Supreme Court held that Full Faith and Credit, rather than comity

principles, governs the domestication and enforcement of the judgment of a sister

state entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court further held that

despite Florida’s privacy laws and their effect on grandparent visitation, the

2properly domesticated judgment of a sister state allowing grandparent visitation is

enforceable in Florida, and a trial court has no discretion but to enforce such a

properly entered and domesticated judgment. Id.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Strinko’s petition

and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of RegeneRx (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.J. Finkelstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2007



/s/ J.J. FinkelsteinChief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General *v.*The Atlantic Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Appeal from order of Follett, J., argued November, 1882; order affirmed. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
#### § 25.100 Purpose and effective date.

The purpose of these Title IX regulations is to effectuate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (except sections 904 and 906 of those Amendments) (20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688), which is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether or not such program or activity is offered or sponsored by an educational institution as defined in these Title IX regulations. The effective date of these Title IX regulations shall be September 29, 2000.
Order entered July 26, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00566-CV

ERWIN CRUZ, ET AL., Appellants

V.

MEHRDAD GHANI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-16274

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ July 24, 2017 unopposed motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellants shall file a brief by September 11, 2017.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                            0000705581
<NAME>                           DIGITAL COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         824,039
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  271,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,095,126
<PP&E>                                         29,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,232,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,868
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,983,371
<OTHER-SE>                                     (946,461)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,232,778
<SALES>                                        33,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               33,706
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  428,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (394,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (394,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.03)




</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.162 What must MROs do with multiple verified results for the same testing event? ( a ) If the testing event is one in which there was one specimen collection with multiple verified non-negative results, as the MRO, you must report them all to the DER. For example, if you verified the specimen as being positive for marijuana and cocaine and as being a refusal to test because the specimen was also adulterated, as the MRO, you should report the positives and the refusal to the DER.
( b ) If the testing event was one in which two separate specimen collections (e.g., a specimen out of temperature range and the subsequent observed collection) were sent to the laboratory, as the MRO, you must: ( 1 ) If both specimens were verified negative, report the result as negative.
( 2 ) If either of the specimens was verified negative and the other was verified as one or more non-negative(s), report the non-negative result(s) only. For example, if you verified one specimen as negative and the other as a refusal to test because the second specimen was substituted, as the MRO you should report only the refusal to the DER. ( i ) If the first specimen is reported as negative, but the result of the second specimen has not been reported by the laboratory, as the MRO, you should hold—not report—the result of the first specimen until the result of the second specimen is received.
( ii ) If the first specimen is reported as non-negative, as the MRO, you should report the result immediately and not wait to receive the result of the second specimen.
( 3 ) If both specimens were verified non-negative, report all of the non-negative results. For example, if you verified one specimen as positive and the other as a refusal to test because the specimen was adulterated, as the MRO, you should report the positive and the refusal results to the DER.
( c ) As an exception to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as the MRO, you must follow procedures at § 40.159(g) when any verified non-negative result is also invalid.
[73 FR 35972, June 25, 2008, as amended at 82 FR 52245, Nov. 13, 2017]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131254(67) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE Stephen J. Markman, COMPANY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131254 COA: 265176 Bay CC: 04-003183-CK ARTHUR P. DORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 6, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

C AVANAGH and W EAVER
, JJ., would grant reconsideration.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsid eration and, on reconsider ation, would grant leave to appeal.

p0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
1210-AB32-2-1376.html[7/26/2015 2:46:02 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw0-po9k

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1872

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Darlene Coats

Address:

51 Sandy Lane

Hampstead, NC, 28443

Email: darlenecoats49@yahoo.com

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan my own retirement
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 192 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 17, 2001.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2500) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
waived except as follows: beginning with ``Provided'' on page 19, line 13, 
through ``workyears:'' on line 19. Where points of order are waived against part 
of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another part of such 
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not against the entire 
paragraph. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# Time and Date:

10 a.m. Thursday, September 27, 2007.

# Place:

Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Request from Consolidated Federal Credit Union to Convert to a Community Charter.

2. Request from Connects Federal Credit Union to Convert to a Community Charter.

                        3.                         *Final Rule:*                         Section 701.3 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Member Inspection of Credit Union Books, Records, and Minutes.                    

# Recess:

11 a.m.

# Time and Date:

11:15 a.m., Thursday, September 27, 2007.

# Place:

Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Two (2) Merger applications under Parts 704 and 708b of NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8).

2. Appeal under section 701.14 and Part 747, Subpart J of NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 07-4724 Filed 9-20-07; 3:07 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #18073 and #18074; MONTANA Disaster Number MT-00170]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Montana (FEMA-4726-DR), dated 08/12/2023. *Incident:*
                         Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         04/10/2023 through 04/26/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 08/12/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/11/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/13/2024.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/12/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Blaine, Daniels, Hill, Park, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Valley and the Fort Peck Tribes. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375( print page 56910)*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18073 6 and for economic injury is 18074 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2023-17937 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
#### Emily E. Forster, as Administratrix of the Estate of William J. Forster, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*August Heckscher et al., as Receivers of Milliken Brothers, Respondents.

*Forster*v. *Heckscher,*143 App. Div. 947, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted June 12, 1911;

decided June 16, 1911.)

Motior to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 29, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term.

*620The motion was made upon the ground that appellant had failed to serve the undertaking necessary to perfect the appeal.

*Louis Cohn*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1404
JOHN A. LANGWORTHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT L. DEAN; RICHARD P. CRANE; SUE DUDLEY; DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-2631-AW) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.John A. Langworthy, Appellant Pro Se. Maureen Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney General, Elisabeth Ann Sachs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Charles Wellington Thompson, Jr., County Attorney, Sharon Veronica Burrell, Joanne Robertson, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: John Langworthy appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Langworthy v. Dean , No. CA-98-2631-AW (D. Md. Mar. 10, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.371 On what information does an initiating official rely in deciding whether to start a PIE proceeding? ( a ) An initiating official may rely on credible information from any source as the basis for starting a PIE proceeding.
( b ) Before sending a correction notice (see § 40.373), the initiating official informally contacts the service agent to determine if there is any information that may affect the initiating official's determination about whether it is necessary to send a correction notice. The initiating official may take any information resulting from this contact into account in determining whether to proceed under this subpart.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, October 20, 1995 (132), Para 132.10 Additional Sponsors]
[Page 1571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.132.10  additional sponsors

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 43: Mr. Owens.
       H.R. 428: Ms. Pelosi.
       H.R. 713: Mr. Moran, Ms. McKinney, and Mr. Davis.
       H.R. 1073: Mr. Clement and Mr. Sensenbrenner.
       H.R. 1074: Mr. Clement.
       H.R. 1083: Mr. Gilchrest.
       H.R. 1595: Mr. Porter.
       H.R. 1982: Mr. Richardson.
       H.R. 2008: Mr. Quinn.

```